SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANILKUMAR DADURAO DHEKLE – Appellant
Versus
RUKHIBEN . – Respondent
C.A. No.-005284-005284 / 2006 12-04-2017



Advocates:
RAJIV SHANKAR DVIVEDI

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5284 OF 2006

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5284 OF 2006

ANIL KUMAR DADURAO DHEKLE

…Appellant

Versus

RUKHIBEN AND ORS.

…Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated

16.10.2003 in Civil Revision Application No.1517 of 1983 passed

by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, dismissing the

revision petition thereby affirming the order of the First Appellate

Court which reversed the order of eviction passed by the trial court.

Vide impugned order, the High Court declined to order eviction on

the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting without the

permission of the landlord.

2.

Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows: The

appellant herein is the owner of the property known as “Radha

Bhuvan” a two storeyed building situated on Vadi Rang Mahal,

Hathia Khan Road, Vadodara City near Alankar Studio and flour

Page No. 1 of 17

Digitally signed by

NARENDRA PRASAD

Date: 2017.04.12

17:25:57 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5284 OF 2006

mill. The property consists of ground floor, first floor and second

floor. The ground floor of the suit premises was let out to the first

respondent-defendant No.1 Manilal Ishwarbhai Valand-the original

tenant in the year 1958 on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The original

tenant was running a hair cutting salon in the rented premises

under the name of ‘Excellent Hair Dressing Saloon’. The tenancy

commenced from the 6th day of the month and ended on 5th day of

the following month and for payment of rent, receipt was given

from time to time. The original tenant was not in the habit of paying

the rent regularly, that is, on the due date of each month and he

was in arrears of rent for the period ranging from 06.07.1974 to

05.05.1976, amounting to Rs.660/ for twenty two months. On wilful

default in payment of rent, a notice was duly served upon the

original tenant to make payment of the above arrears within one

month from the date of receipt of notice and the tenant has neither

paid the arrears nor sent any reply. Left with no alternative, the

appellant-plaintiff was constrained to file Rent Suit No.499 of 1978

on 29.09.1978 before the Court of Small Causes Judge at

Vadodara seeking possession of the property and arrears of rent.

During the pendency of the suit, the original tenant Manilal

Ishwarbhai Valand died on 26.11.1979 and his legal

Page No. 2 of 17

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5284 OF 2006

representatives viz., his wife and two sons namely, Dahyalal and

Bhogilal were brought on record as defendant Nos.1/1 to 1/3.

3.

One of the sons of the tenant named Bhogilal independently

runs hair cutting salon on Ajwa Road opposite to Navjivan Society.

Similarly, another son Dahyalal was serving in Alembic Glass

Works for the last 10 to 12 years. Even when tenant-Manilal was

alive, his son Dahyalal never worked with his father and never

helped him in running the shop. After the death of the original

tenant-defendant No.1 Manilal, the appellant-plaintiff found that

one Somabhai Dahiyabhai Valand was inducted into the suit

premises by illegal sub-letting of the tenanted premises so as to

deprive the appellant-plaintiff of his legal right to seek possession

of the suit property. The said Somabhai Dahyabhai Valand was

arrayed as defendant No.2 in the suit (respondent No.4 in this

appeal).

4.

Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties

and the submissions made by the respective parties, the Small

Causes Court allowed the rent suit on the ground of default in

payment of rent by the respondents-defendants and also directed

them to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the property

to the appellant-plaintiff. It was further held by the Small Causes

Page No. 3 of 17

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5284 OF 2006

Court that after the death of the original t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top